3.cri.revn.20.2023 @.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2023 Tanaji Tatyaram Gade … Applicant Versus Girija Tanaji Gade and anr. … Respondents *** Mr. Ajit M. Savagave for the Applicant. Mr. Anand G. Awasarmol a/w Mr. Pawan S. Dabhade for Respondent No.1. Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent – State. *** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 03 SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The Applicant/Husband is challenging the order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Thane, rejecting the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3 of 2019. By the said Application, the Applicant – husband had prayed for alternation of maintenance amount under the provisions of Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). Indian Penal Code, 1860 is referred to as ‘IPC’ for short. 3. The case of the Applicant is that in Petition No. ___ filed after about 22 to 25 years from the date of marriage, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the parties entered into a compromise dated 09.09.2017, by which the Applicant agreed to pay the maintenance of Rs.14,000/- per month from March, 2017. This was a compromise in Lok Adalat. Vina Khadpe 1 VINA ARVIND KHADPE Digitally signed by VINA ARVIND KHADPE Date: 2026.09.03 18:40:04 +0530 3.cri.revn.20.2023 @.doc 4. According to the Applicant, the Respondent No. 1/ wife has two flats in her name and she is staying with his one son and two daughters. It is also contended that the Respondent – wife is running a a bhishi and the children are earning. It is submitted that the Applicant retired on 31.05.2018 from the service of Railways where he was working as Senior Technician and he was was paying the maintenance amount and has also borne the medical expenses for his daughter. According to the Applicant, after retirement, he is getting pension of about Rs.20,000/- per month, and therefore, the maintenance amount needs to be reduced suitably. It is informed on instructions that the Applicant is ready to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is further contended that 498A IPC and domestic violence proceedings were initiated in 2018 with a view of extracting more money. 5. The Respondent No.1/wife filed an Affidavit of Evidence in Family Court directly, without filing any Reply, raising grievance about arrears of maintenance under compromise. 6. The learned Judge of the Family Court has dismissed the application, stating that the Applicant must have received retirement benefits and that the bank statements were not produced showing actual pension. The learned Judge has held that the salary of the Railway Employees is much higher and that income proof was not produced. 7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant pointed out that in the Application before the Family Court, the Applicant had produced the Vina Khadpe 2 3.cri.revn.20.2023 @.doc pension documents along with account statements and copies of proceedings filed by the Respondent in 2018 under 498-A of IPC. It is also pointed out that the Applicant has produced tax receipts of two flats standing in the name of Respondent – wife and the case status of the domestic violence proceedings. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the findings of the learned Judge of the Family Court about non-production of the income proof as well as non-filing of the account statement is perverse and factually incorrect. 8. The learned Trial Judge has held that according to common knowledge, the ‘salary’ of Central Government Employee/ Railway Employee is much higher. It is not disputed that the Applicant is retired with effect from 31.05.2018. The Pension Payment Order dated 21.5.2018 is produced on record, indicating the amount of pension as Rs.21,800/- with a commuted portion of Rs.8,720/- to be deducted from pension from 01.06.2018 to 31.05.2023. Perusal of the Bank statement produced on record indicates that the Petitioner is receiving a consistent credit of pension amount of Rs. 19,000/- and odd. The Applicant has also produced on record two tax receipt of Flat Nos.111 and 114 issued by Thane Municipal Corporation, indicating that two flats are in the name of Respondent No.1 wife at Majiwada Thane. 9. The fact that two flats are in the name of Respondent No. 1 wife is not disputed. It is not disputed that these flats are in possession / control of the Respondent No.1 wife. It is not difficult to understand that after retirement, the earning capacity of a person reduces. Vina Khadpe 3 3.cri.revn.20.2023 @.doc 10. In view of all this material available before the Court, it cannot be said that the Applicant has not made out any case for reduction in the maintenance amount. Therefore, proportionate reduction in the maintenance liability is necessary, especially considering that Respondent No. 1 wife has two flats and the children of the couple are grown up and stated to be working. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons indicated above, the impugned order, being perverse, requires interference. Original maintenance amount under compromise was Rs.14,000/- per month and Rs.10,000/- per month is volunteered. 12. Accordingly, Revision Application is partly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.3 of 2019 is partly allowed, thereby directing the Applicant to pay to Respondent No.1. wife Rs.10,000/- per month from 21.06.2019 (date of application). It is clarified that the Applicant’s liability to pay as per the compromise in Lok Adalat @ Rs.14,000/- per month, shall continue till 20.06.2019. 13. The maintenance amount shall be re-worked from 21.06.2019 and total arrears as of today, if any, shall be paid by the Applicant to Respondent No.1 wife within a period of four weeks from today. 14. The Revision Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR verifiable copy of this order. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Vina Khadpe 4